(no title)
Deukhoofd | 4 months ago
*Are you more cautious about sharing certain information?*
Reesink: “I can’t comment on what that relationship is like now compared to before. But it’s true that we make that assessment and sometimes don’t share things anymore.”
*That’s a striking shift. What has been the most important change?*
Akerboom: “We don’t judge what we see politically, but we look at our experiences with the services. And we are very alert to the politicization of our intelligence and to human rights violations.”
*What does it mean in practice if there are risks in those areas?*
Akerboom: “Sometimes you have to consider each case individually: can I still share this information or not?”
Covzire|4 months ago
On one hand, this is the modus operandi of every political institutional from the CIA, to the CCP to city states to small towns in California, everyone acts in their own self-interest all the time. They're claiming nebulous "human rights" violations but don't state what they are. Could they mean blowing up boats suspected to be carrying drugs or precursors? I'd like to see Trump stop that myself, it's a pretty dangerous game he's playing.
On the other hand, I would expect the CIA/NSA have much greater potential value for the Dutch intel agencies than the reverse, so them prodding an administration after he was nearly assassinated twuce and many of his closest political officers and supporters were arrested and subjected to lawfare over the last 4 years doesn't seem like a particularly wise course of action. It's true this iteration of Trump is a lot more in tune with the way DC works so I wonder how wise the statement even is, they can accomplish what they're doing without announcing it, except now they announced what they're really up to and should probably expect some kind of retaliation.